Vocal Voices

For some reason this is a pressing issue for the government who are offering a free vote on an amendment to the current regs to allow packs of more than two dogs to take part in a "hunt".

Oh, hang on, it was part of their 'cunning plan' manifesto to buy votes in rural marginals. However, a free vote means that it will almost certainly fail.

As you were.

We complain when they don't do what they say, then we complain when they do.

Suff wrote:We complain when they don't do what they say, then we complain when they do.

They are politicians, that is what they are for.

It is not that they have acted, but why now, and why a free vote? They are playing the game of doing nothing but making it appear that they are doing something.

It's not bringing back fox-hunting. It's merely bringing legislation into line with Scotland, for some reason (not sure why it was ever different in the first place). The pack of dogs can only be used to flush out foxes for pest control purposes, which are then humanely shot.

I don't think it'll matter all that much in the scheme of things whether the amendment is passed or not, TBH. It's hardly legalising hunting in the way the rural lobbyists want, and it's way short of what the Tories were "promising" in their manifesto.

TheOstrich wrote:(not sure why it was ever different in the first place).

Because Scotland have their own legal system which predates the Assembly and also because the Labour lot in the Scottish Assembly removed Fox Hunting in Scotland first. However Labour in Scotland were in Coalition with the Lib Dems when the law was changed and in Westminster Blair had a huge majority.

When the English vote came up, the Scots Labour MP's took great delight in ensuring that England lost Fox Hunting too. Much to my disgust and the disgust of almost everyone on Scotland I know.

This allowed Blair to go further...

What I do note is that the number of fox attacks on children in city homes increased significantly after the banning. Probably as a result of foxes heading to the city due to lack of available food....

Just my thought on it...

Perhaps it was an engineered issue after all...

If so, then the SNP should be ashamed of themselves. Because when they were only a small force and in opposition in Scotland, they decried this behaviour as unconscionable..

I did ask why it was so pressing in my OP.... all is becoming clearer now.

What Cameron has done, and done very neatly, is to expose why English votes are needed for laws that only affect England.

The SNP originally said they weren't going to vote on this matter as it did not affect Scotland. OK.

Then they changed their minds.

So Cameron can turn to his wavering back benchers and say "This is why we need EVEL. Because people who English laws don't affect can have a say in the making of English law, and because you can't trust the SNP to keep their word".

This isn't how it has been spun on the TV news, but then again it wouldn't be, would it?

I saw a piece in the wee small hours, when all the Sleb newsreaders are in bed, by some Sky wonk.

The take was that of the difficulty of governing with only a small majority and that this was a way of mitigating that problem. It has not made it to the major bulletins and nobody else has picked up on it - well there's a shock!

Very true, it will give Cameron a strong majority in all issues except for UK wide....

Which would go down very well for him. I wonder if by giving full fiscal devolution to Scotland they could also remove the Scots from all Budgetary issues. Giving Cameron a very powerful hand indeed.